Forum:Extended Cut- Influenced which ending you go for?
Howdy y'all (or some other such opening, I'm really quite bad at them T.T), now that the Extended Cut DLC has been released, I was curious as to how many people now go for different endings, which endings, and why; indeed, as someone who thought so poorly of the un-extended endings that I found it fit to deem Mass Effect 3 the most disappointing game I had ever played, this new DLC not only completely fixes the issues I had with this game (i.e. as I mention in the linked-to post, thematic games basically CANNOT screw up the endings, as it renders the entire story arc terrible by virtue of being doomed to an unsatisfying conclusion) but also changed which ending I went for. In regards to myself, I preferred the "Destroy" ending previously, as it allowed Shepard to survive if you had a high enough EMS (if a game offers the chance, I always preserve the hero character unless it is something like Fallout 3 sans Broken Steel, where they basically called you a complete coward if you didn't turn yourself into what essentially amounted to a Hungry Man TV Dinner after being in the microwave too long) and seemed most fitting with his character for myself (noting I play Shepard as a paragon). The "Control" ending seemed to reek of egotistical folly with too great an unknown in terms of consequence, whereas "Synthesis" would have you alter the lives of every being in the galaxy without their consent, betraying the ideals of paragon Shepard while also leaving too great a risk for disaster for the various species' futures (not to mention it would be kind of pointless, as it isn't as if, later down the line, they couldn't develop the technology to do this sort of thing themselves, removing the risk of utilizing unknown technology while also giving freedom of choice for individuals). Now that the new DLC has come out, I find myself firmly in the "Control" camp, as it not only allows for Shepard to survive (yay!), it also allows him to, essentially, fulfill his role to the greatest possible extent as galactic protector (mind you, some might call his whole "apotheosis" in this ending a little creepy, given the freaky messiah vibes paragon Shepard gives off during the whole series). I could get into further moral and logical justifications, but I don't want to do that as I don't want this thread to devolve into a debate over subjective perceptions. The extended endings did, however, also make the "Synthesis" ending alot more unappealing to myself; not only did it look the least impressive (in my opinion, with "Destroy" looking the most impressive and "Control" coming in a close second), something further worsened by that terrible "green-eye" effect in the cutscenes, it also had the worst voice-over of the lot (honestly, EDI simply can't compare to Hackett or Shepard). Anyways, I've gone on long enough, what are your thoughts? Remember, this isn't a thread to criticize others' ideas, just to share your own thoughts on things. --Haegemonia(talk) 05:15, June 27, 2012 (UTC) I would like to point out that in the "Control" ending, Shepard doesn't live. Notice the words Shepard uses in the epilogue: s/he refers to him/herself as 'he/she', as if the 'Shepard' speaking is either suddenly referring to him/herself in the third person, or Shepard's personality has overridden the Catalyst's..(perhaps only temporarily?) I agree with the phony greenie stuff in the Synthesis, but I honestly thought EDI's voice actress did a swell job at narrating it. In fact, I thought Hackett's was a tad bit lackluster when compared to CatalystShepard's and EDI's narration. Though that's all up to personal opinion, I suppose.. Except for the phony greenie eyes/instant microchipage. DeltaEcho 06:22, June 27, 2012 (UTC) Destroy, as before. I've come to hate starbrat and Synthesis even more than before, and I'm not going to pick something praised by an AI whose actions have been proved flawed a thousand times before. NO F* WAY. If Synthesis is supposed to be the pinnacle of evolution, then let the life EVOLVE on its own, don't mess with it. Killing off the geth and EDi sucks, but I believe that you cannot save everyone and that the price has to be paid, for ridding the galaxy of the threat and avoiding some false utopia (now, Reapers are already part synthetic-part organic - did it help them in understanding the organics? I somehow must have missed the part where they cherish organic life).Shepard staying alive had nothing to do with my choice, since with EMS over 3000, I never expected, or wanted him to - getting that infamous last breath scene was sorta disappointing. I made a horrible decision, at a great cost, and dying for it seems just right. - Though, now that I think of it... the truth is that Destroy was not my original option. My original option was to turn and shoot the starbrat in the head. Sadly, it was too ideal to work. --Ygrain 07:03, June 27, 2012 (UTC) I don't know how much of a difference it makes, but my original choice of Control did get reinforced some. Among other things, it's confirmed that the Reapers will stick around and help, not just fly off into the unknown like it was originally replied, and the whole voiceover by what-used-to-be-Shepard was very cool. And it also confirms that you're "overwriting" the Catalyst, which can only be a plus - that thing just got worse the more we learned about it. Also: Shepringer. In the words of the great Stan Lee, 'nuff said. --Zxjkl 08:10, June 27, 2012 (UTC) Reject. My main Shepard trusts the Catalyst about as far as she can throw it. Better to give the next cyclce a chance to beat the Reapers on their own terms than to use an unknown device presented to you by the enemy. It hurt like hell do to it, but this was the only choice that stayed true to who my Shepard is and what she believes life is about. From a metagaming perspective I'd pick Destroy, but from an RP perspective I simply don't see Shepard believing a single word that comes out of Starbrat's mouth. Kestrella 10:47, June 27, 2012 (UTC) :This. That epilogue made clear that even though we didn't make it, the next cycle(s) did and are free of the Reapers. I guess Destroy could still make sense RP-wise, since it is clear that it's an option starbrat doesn't want Shepard to choose, so that's why I picked it (and I wanted to see some more closure), but the remaining options are so repulsive for me that I refuse to ever play them. --Ygrain 11:07, June 27, 2012 (UTC) ::Repulsive is the right word. Anyone else get a major "YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED" vibe from Reaper Shepard? Kestrella 13:17, June 27, 2012 (UTC) :::Something like that. Ever since I heard the options the first time, every single instinct I have yells that this is fundamentally wrong, that the starbrat is ultimately evil and cannot be trusted. It is good that various people can relate their Shepards to the various endings and see them as fitting, but for me, the loss of independent will and becoming something else, is a fate worse than death. Synthesis is then a false utopy, a brave new world which robbed every single future creature of its choice - and I wonder very much if being part synthetic also means that every single creature can be controlled via this synthetic part. Again, NEVER. --Ygrain 14:18, June 27, 2012 (UTC) BEFORE the release of the Extended Cut, I chose the "Control" option because I thought that my Female Commander Shepard would replace the "Starchild" and use the Reapers as a force for good, not evil. However, there were a whole lot of questions that remained unanswered, like... When my Female Commander Shepard died, did she just persuade the Reapers to leave & then Reapers just went back to their way of thinking before my sacrifice? Based on how my character was developed, she would have planned for the future too, was there anything else that she added besides "Leave us alone"? Then, I went for the "Synthesis" ending, which I didn't like because everyone became "synthetically augmented" and that meant that "Liara" isn't the same anymore. I didn't like this decision. Then, I went for the "Destroy" ending, which I didn't like either because I felt bad that the sacrifice that "Legion" made became pointless. Furthermore, I didn't want "EDI" to be destroyed because she was happy with "Jeff". AFTER I downloaded the Extended Cut DLC, I immediately played the game with the "Control" ending and I love it so much now that words cannot describe how awesome it is. With all of the plot holes explained and cleared up, Bioware/EA has redeemed themselves in my eyes! :) With all due respect to those who were looking for a "everyone lives happily ever after" ending, I like the fact that Bioware/EA took a more realistic and unique twist to the tried and true "everyone lives happily ever after" ending. Don't get me wrong, I love the "everyone lives happily ever after ending" too! :) I am really glad that Bioware/EA took a chance and came up with one the most awesome ending that I have ever seen(I am refering to the "Control" ending with the Extended Cut DLC just to avoid any confusion). Thank you so much Bioware/EA for such an awesome ending! And, if I may leave you guys(Bioware/EA) some advice for any future games that you will make, please... DO NOT LEAVE ANY MORE LOOSE PLOT HOLES IN YOUR GAME ENDINGS! PROVIDE CLOSURE & EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENS AFTERWARDS! :) I can't wait for "Mass Effect 4" :) The Crazy Tactician! 11:35, June 27, 2012 (UTC) Destroy before. Destroy after. Every other time I get a chance I will destroy the reapers. Why? Because that is the mission. If you’re not going to do what it takes to get the job done, you might as well run away with the rest of the refugees. Although I did like the fact that in the EC DLC if you turn and shoot the starbrat, it counts as Shepard giving him a big middle finger; even if it does amount to a “you lose” ending. That being said, while I still consider everything after the final push to be nothing less than a polished turd(even with the EC DLC) it is still exponentially better than the original. What I would like to know however, and what they still have not addressed, is how exactly my squad went from standing next to me on the ridge before the final run to on the bridge of the Normandy. Especially when there were marines still fighting groundside. MrRabbitSir :Just a quick note; I am aware that in the Control ending Shepard does not "survive" per say, however, it is pretty clear his consciousness does live on as the controller of the Reapers. Yes, I know some might argue matters of "copying vs. uploading" and such, however, I'd suggest that entire argument is overly simplified and fails to account that in the event of two systems being exactly the same in every way except for location that, rather than a copy, they are (in fact) the same system (i.e. if we remember that all objects function as both a wave and a particle, and that our location at any one point in time is non-specific, then the fact that we continue functioning as time progresses indicates that the function of system consistency is not dependent upon location). --Haegemonia(talk) 16:10, June 27, 2012 (UTC) ::I'd argue that Reaper Shepard referring to Shepard as "the man I once was" and "him" makes it pretty clear that R!Shepard considers itself a new and separate entity. A more evolved clone based on Shepard rather than a continuation of the individual in a different form. You don't talk about yourself in the third person. Kestrella 19:59, June 27, 2012 (UTC) :::True, Space-Jesus-Shepard (SJS) may consider himself a new entity, but I'd consider it no more a truly new entity than an adult is from as they were as a child. Consider that Shepard asks, and has confirmed by the Catalyst, he will "control" the Reapers; control indicates active participation, whereas if all he was doing was changing their directive and then/simultaneously dying would be considered "commanding" at most. Likewise, SJS states things to the effect of "the man I once was", "his thoughts are freed", "people who remember me", which indicates consistency of being rather than a novel entity. It's actually a fairly common psychological phenomenon for people to disassociate themselves from their past self to some extent (you actually have to as a rule to function, otherwise adaptability and development of thought is stymied), especially after some great trauma. :::Hell, even if you don't want to get into the semantics or development of consciousness, allow me to ask you this: If two entities are exactly the same in every key way, the only difference being one came into being as the other died, then how are they different entities at all? The only way that could be is A) You follow a solely chemical-based theory of cognition (essentially the same presupposition that goes into the Swamp-Man Hypothesis), something proven patently false due to the inability of non-quantum chemical systems to extend beyond binary variables (as human consciousness is capable of) or B) You believe in some form of metaphysical dualism, which is not to say this is flawed to believe, simply that if we are remaining in the purely scientific realm such variables make the overall attempt to form hypothesis from available data doomed to failure. --Haegemonia(talk) 22:04, June 27, 2012 (UTC) ::::Except they're not the same in every key way, that's my point. Reaper Shepard is Shepard combined with the Catalyst. It's guided by the essence of the (wo)man Shepard was, but it can't be called "Shepard" any more than the combined mind of all post-upgrade Geth can be called "Legion". Kestrella 13:37, June 28, 2012 (UTC) :::::Combined with the Catalyst? Where does it say that is what happened? I don't believe anything was ever said to that effect and there is no evidence it is anything other than Shepard controlling them at that point. Mind you, even if that was what happened, the compartmentalized model of the overall consciousness still has said Shepard's mind in totality (i.e. if we view the overall system like a composite entity such as air and Shepard like an individual aspect the aforementioned example as a baseline, let's say he's nitrogen, his introduction and function as part of the overall system does not fundamentally change Shepard the nitrogen). ::::: In any case, I suspect that our difference of opinion derives more from how we view the nature of consciousness, such that it is more a matter of fundamentals and, perhaps, presuppositions than anything else. In any case, I understand what you’re saying, I’m simply noting I do not agree with your logic; at this point, I’m not sure what else can be said without the conversation becoming overly esoteric and/or tautological. --Haegemonia(talk) 14:02, June 28, 2012 (UTC) The EC influenced me to pick all four endings, so I think that means a lot. Before the choice was kill everyone (the choice I always pick), or kill everyone but the Reapers, or turn everything into cyborgs before kill everyone but the Reapers. Now the choices are kill all synthetics, or become a Reaper god, or turn everything into cuddling cyborgs, or tell star child to I don't want this crap anymore. A lot more meaningful choices, no? Raider1001 04:04, June 28, 2012 (UTC) Raider1001 04:04, June 28, 2012 (UTC) I picked DESTROY the first time, and the extended cut just made me choose that option more enthusiastically. It honestly sounded to me like the Starbrat's explanation of what the Red Ending meant was a long-winded way of saying, "Basically you win." And I wanted those Reapers blown to hell. (Also, my initial impressions of the Blue (creepy) and Green (absurd) endings were similarly reinforced by the extended explanations.) HELO 19:20, June 28, 2012 (UTC) I picked Synthesis the first time I played through because that seemed like the least bad choice at the time. I picked Destroy the second and third time in case the Indoctrination Theory was correct; Control originally seemed like a trap designed to finish your indoctrination while Synthesis sounded like doing the Reapers' work for them in merging synthetics and organics. The Extended Cut has made Control and Synthesis more palatable. Control no longer seems like a trap as we see Shepard is in fact controlling the Reapers. Synthesis became more interesting by possibly giving a way for husks to regain their humanity as well as tapping the knowledge of the species processed intro Reapers. Destroy was taken down a notch or two by appearing to be the most destructive choice. So, I don't know which ending I would pick now. TheUnknown285 07:19, July 8, 2012 (UTC)